LAL, J. - (1.) THIS review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here- in-after called in short `the CPC') seeks review of the judgment dated 4. 3. 1997 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Kejriwal (as he then was) in Civil Second Appeal No. 244/1994 vide which the appeal has been allowed and the judgments of the learned courts below have been set-aside remitting the matter back to the trial Court with the direction to pass fresh judgment excluding notification dated 23. 9. 1965 (Ex. 1 ).
(2.) A civil original suit being No. 6/1976 came to be filed in the court of Additional Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Bayana District Bharatpur on 23. 2. 1982. After trial the suit was decreed relying upon the entry of Wakf property in the record of Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs and the revenue record of Settlement Department in addition to other evidence produced in the suit. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed on 1. 3. 1994 up-holding the judgment of the trial Court, where-upon a second appeal was preferred in this court which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 4. 3. 1997 in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muslim Wakf Board vs. Radha Kishan (AIR 1979 SC 289) remitting the case back with the direction as indicated above. The said judgment is sought to be reviewed. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has made two fold submissions. His first contention is that the judgment dated 4. 3. 1997 has been passed without framing substantial question of law in the second appeal and only on the basis of the judgment in the case of Muslim Wakf Board vs. Radha Kishan (supra) which is an error apparent on the face of record calling for review of the aforesaid judgment dated 4. 3. 1997. In reply it is submitted with equal vehemance that it cannot be said that the decision of the second appeal without formulating substantial question of law is not an error apparent on the face of record and this by itself does not render the judgment sought to be reviewed as illegal. It can be inferred from the nature of question actually considered and decided by the second appellate court even without specifically and separately formulating substantial question of law. In this regard reliance has been placed on the case of M. S. V. Raja and another vs. Seeni Thevar and others (2001 (6)SCC 652) and Mahabir (dead) by Lrs. and others vs. Mahabir Parshad and others (2004) 11 SCC 350 ). His second contention is that the ratio of the case of Muslim Wakf Board vs. Radha Kishan (supra) has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge who decided the second appeal and the decision in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs vs. Smt. Hadi begum and others (AIR 1992 SC 1083) has not been kept in view while deciding the said appeal. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that neither it is a valid ground for review of the judgment of this court nor it can be said that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the ratio of the decision in the case of Muslim Wakf Board vs. Radha Kishan (supra) and has covered this ratio of the decision in the case of Board of Muslim Wakfs vs. Smt. Hadi begum and others.
(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the judgment sought to be reviewed as well as the authorities referred to on either side at the bar. Since both these contentions are inter-connected, I propose to consider both these contentions and decide them simultaneously. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that no specific and separate substantial question of law has been framed in the second appeal which has been decided vide judgment dated 4. 3. 1997. But as in the instant case, the second appeal was decided without framing the substantial question of law on the basis of admitted facts and the judgment of the Supreme Court, it was held by the Apex Court that no interference with the impugned judgment under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted as it was only a matter of procedure. ;